Was da Vinci's Mona Lisa Muse A Man? - Eleanor Ide - Ottawa Citizen - Feb 03-2011
My first reaction is : Who cares! In an all boy boarding school we put on plays by Shakespeare and Mollière. Some of us got the roles of men, others of women. Today, tut-tutters would find some form of salaciousness in that. But then, isn't this a rather revealing symbol of our era - our inability to recognize and respect anything different whilst professing to be warm-heartedly "tolerant"? Even so-called experts play the game. Even they belittle their professional status by bringing down "the Greats" a notch - by spouting unprovable theories in the world’s press and sparring amongst themselves like school-yard brats. But in reality, redefining the undefinable and revising a historic event to satisfy our own in-need-of-titillation curiosity is a bit sleazy. Somewhat like "scientific expert reality tv".
Not so long ago we had the "reasons why" Van Gogh cut off his ear. Now, we have the "secret" behind the Mona Lisa smile. . . God forbid we should maintain a modicum of life’s mysteries. How can second-guessing "what was" (a few hundred years ago) be considered scientific fact without scientific fact? If anything, curiosity based revelations (about those we call “Masters”) have more to do with jealousy and envy than anything else. With one group of aging specialists claiming black and one clan of grave-diggers claiming white, why don't so called experts keep their fantasies to themselves until they can actually perform a scientifically provable experiment?
I guess the only way some of us can elevate ourselves to a level of "grandeur by illusion" is to debase others - cut them down to size, bring them to their knees by giggling and taunting and “revealing”. And how much more fun it is when we point the finger at those who can’t defend themselves. . . Such is the mark of bullies who hide behind the title expert and of the times which support such behaviour.
My first reaction is : Who cares! In an all boy boarding school we put on plays by Shakespeare and Mollière. Some of us got the roles of men, others of women. Today, tut-tutters would find some form of salaciousness in that. But then, isn't this a rather revealing symbol of our era - our inability to recognize and respect anything different whilst professing to be warm-heartedly "tolerant"? Even so-called experts play the game. Even they belittle their professional status by bringing down "the Greats" a notch - by spouting unprovable theories in the world’s press and sparring amongst themselves like school-yard brats. But in reality, redefining the undefinable and revising a historic event to satisfy our own in-need-of-titillation curiosity is a bit sleazy. Somewhat like "scientific expert reality tv".
Not so long ago we had the "reasons why" Van Gogh cut off his ear. Now, we have the "secret" behind the Mona Lisa smile. . . God forbid we should maintain a modicum of life’s mysteries. How can second-guessing "what was" (a few hundred years ago) be considered scientific fact without scientific fact? If anything, curiosity based revelations (about those we call “Masters”) have more to do with jealousy and envy than anything else. With one group of aging specialists claiming black and one clan of grave-diggers claiming white, why don't so called experts keep their fantasies to themselves until they can actually perform a scientifically provable experiment?
I guess the only way some of us can elevate ourselves to a level of "grandeur by illusion" is to debase others - cut them down to size, bring them to their knees by giggling and taunting and “revealing”. And how much more fun it is when we point the finger at those who can’t defend themselves. . . Such is the mark of bullies who hide behind the title expert and of the times which support such behaviour.
No comments:
Post a Comment